YOU CAN TWF WITH UAS!!!!!!!!! wisdom dispensed. Sarczsm I respect you BBT
Isn't Pathfinder supposed to be 'backwards-compatible' with 3.x? In 3.x, unarmed strikes were a single weapon. Flurry of blows was not Two-Weapon Fighting. The only thing that implies unarmed strikes are more than one weapon is the descriptive text in the spell magic fang, where it references a fist and not simply unarmed strike. Magic weapon, on the other hand (heh), refers to unarmed strikes as singular.
The 3.5 FAQ said you can Flurry and TWF at same time. With only Unarmed strikes. Yeah, you heard me.
So they were technically double weapons.
What happens if you are playing a monk and you wake up chained by the wrists to the walls of a dungeon, but are still under the effect of a greater magic weapon spell? (Remember that monks unarmed strikes are affected by spells that effect either natural weapons or manufactured weapons.) Do you not get the GMW bonus when you kick the guard? Does the caster have to specify what exact...
3.5 you didn't hyave to specify as all unarmed strikes got the bonus. Even though they were treated as double weapons by the designers.
Pathfinder somehow missed the memo, made them single weapons (except for flurry), but the designers left notes ytou can TWF with only Unarmed all over the place just like 3.5.
There is RAW wording that supports both sides of this argument. It has been presented over and over.
The rules are not clear. That is the issue.
It honestly don't matter who is right and who is wrong. What matters is that the rules support both sides, and that's not okay. Especially in a system where not every game played can count on "GM fiat" to fix things (ie: PFS exists).
One side has the weapons table listing unarmed strike without showing "double" in the description. The other side has unarmed strike description language, bestiary language, language from a class archetype, FoB language, real world application, GMF language, and a rules clarification by the developers.
I just don't think the one weapon argument is particularly well-founded (though I will freely admit it has better support than the minority position from the Manyshot thread). Now, the developers could certainly release the long-awaited update, definitively ruling that unarmed strikes are a single weapon, making all the requisite changes and clarifications that would be necessary as a result, and that'd be fine. I think it'd be silly to say you can't unarmed strike and TWF - I don't get the logic behind disallowing it. Regardless, it's certainly a plausible outcome. However, I don't think it's necessary and I think it would be a departure from the clearest, cleanest, and least nuanced interpretation of the rules available.
- Unarmed Strike description doesn't lend any weight to the TWF side of the argument. Where are you getting that from? (If anything, it more supports the "single-weapon" side of the argument. "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following..." If it is treated like a melee weapon, and it doesn't have the "double weapon" property, then how are you TWF with it? Link)
- Class archetypes are a horrible place to go if you're looking for clarity. Sohei is proof enough of that.
- FoB language is all sorts of messed up, and that has been acknowledged by the Devs themselves. It, all by itself, supports both sides of the argument.
- Real-world application is possibly the worst argument you could ever have, ever, for a mechanical concern of a roleplaying game. Rules trump "real-world application" every time. (There are tons of things about D&D/Pathfinder that are rules but wouldn't make any sense in the real world.)
- GMF language supports the "multiple weapons" argument. GMW supports the "single weapon" argument. Let's just say these cancel each other out.
- Rules clarification by the developers is incomplete, as has been pointed out several times.
So, really, when you break it down, one side has "nothing in the combat and/or weapon rules state an unarmed strike is a double-weapon, or counts as more than a single weapon." The other side has a line of text in a Beastiary.
Unarmed strikes are not weapons, nor have they ever been. The wording in the core rules of 3.5 is almost (is?) identical to the wording now.
An unarmed strike is treated as a weapon. This entails that it is not a weapon. It is an attack option that every creature shares.
At this point I have to believe the proponents of the 'one weapon' idea are just arguing for argument's sake since they ignore literally every cogent argument against their position and keep returning to the same nonsensical argument.
I tried this approach before, in a March 2012 thread called, Unarmed Strikes: One Weapon or Multiple Weapons?.
Okay, ... this thread is for one thing and one thing only: resolving the question on whether or not unarmed strike is a single weapon or multiple weapons.Have you considered "none of the above"? A third possibility is that unarmed strike might be no weapon at all.
The phrase "unarmed strike" literally means attack without a weapon. And I see many places in the rulebook where it says "When you make an unarmed strike." You are not making a weapon. You are making an attack.
Some others had similar views,
Up until this recent blowup, I have always understood unarmed strike to be a single abstract weapon.
However, "not a weapon" and "not a physical weapon" were never anywhere near as popular as "one weapon" or "multiple weapons." The "double weapon" idea popular in this thread was never mentioned.
I think it has to do with the real-world definition of weapon. An unarmed strike hits an opponent and does damage. That means they were hit by something. By definition something that hits and does damage is a weapon, even if it would be an improvised weapon. If an unarmed strike is envisioned as a punch, then the fist is a weapon. If the unarmed strike is envisioned as a kick, then the foot is a weapon. If the unarmed strike is envisioned as slamming someone with a fat belly, then the belly is a weapon.
And the next step after that is to notice that a fist is a natural body part, so it must be a natural weapon, and we end with hordes of people claiming that unarmed strike is a natural weapon and can follow natural attack rules. Sigh.
Most of the people on these forums are savvy to Pathfinder concepts. If they have trouble seeing unarmed strike as not a weapon, then we will not sell the average player on the notion.
Unarmed Strike description doesn't lend any weight to the TWF side of the argument. Where are you getting that from? (If anything, it more supports the "single-weapon" side of the argument. "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following..." If it is treated like a melee weapon, and it doesn't have the "double weapon" property, then how are you TWF with it? Link)
Not really, considering similar language from 3.5 and it was allowable to TWF with only unarmed strikes in 3.5
Class archetypes are a horrible place to go if you're looking for clarity. Sohei is proof enough of that.
It's a weight of evidence argument. Archetypes might not be the definitive answer, but it's a clear example of developer intent when they design a class specifically based on a boxer, with multiple bonuses to grappling (which requires you to be empty-handed to not take a huge penalty), and with suggested rage powers the clearest reading for which counsels in favor of TWF with unarmed strikes. It's not a horrible place to look to demonstrate developer intent at all. You can't hand-wave this.
FoB language is all sorts of messed up, and that has been acknowledged by the Devs themselves. It, all by itself, supports both sides of the argument.
Only if you presuppose a single-weapon argument. You're hand-waving.
Real-world application is possibly the worst argument you could ever have, ever, for a mechanical concern of a roleplaying game. Rules trump "real-world application" every time. (There are tons of things about D&D/Pathfinder that are rules but wouldn't make any sense in the real world.)
Minimal support, but again, it's a weight thing not an admissibility thing. Ordinarily, game mechanics which differ from real-world application do so for balance or streamlining purposes, neither which would be present in this case.
GMF language supports the "multiple weapons" argument. GMW supports the "single weapon" argument. Let's just say these cancel each other out.
*shrug* Fair enough.
Rules clarification by the developers is incomplete, as has been pointed out several times.
Incomplete, but demonstrates the intent of the developers, which is that different parts are treated separately. It's rather clear on that aspect.
So, really, when you break it down, one side has "nothing in the combat and/or weapon rules state an unarmed strike is a double-weapon, or counts as more than a single weapon." The other side has a line of text in a Beastiary.
Not even a little bit.
Until the developers come out and change the clarifications or the rest of the Monk issues, the weight of the evidence of their intent does not favor a single weapon interpretation.
- Real-world application is possibly the worst argument you could ever have, ever, for a mechanical concern of a roleplaying game. Rules trump "real-world application" every time. (There are tons of things about D&D/Pathfinder that are rules but wouldn't make any sense in the real world.)
Wow. Real world application and verisimilitude are utterly vital to playing RPGs as I see them. There may be many things in RPG rules that are possible that aren't possible in the real world (that's one of the price you pay for playing a larger than life character). And there may be areas of the rules where the relationship to reality is a bit abstract (action economies, armor class, hit points, yadda yadda). But rules trumping real world application for something as basic as a one-two punch? No.
I'm confused, what "spells" language is being used in an unarmed strike argument?
Magic fang and improved magic fang enchant only one punch or kick apparently?
|
Well, instead of stating "unarmed strike", Magic Fang uses the word "fist".
This confuses many.
Imagine what happens when you try to use the spell on a creature who has no fist, but wants to enchant his unarmed strike.
Madness.
Well, in that case that creature would be enchanting his natural attack.
That isn't "another area." It has been brought up many times. Please don't treat it like it's brand new info that no one has considered yet.
(Also, it's a reference that specifically states "hands" even though UAS don't have to be made with hands.)
Your right nico I might not be able to kick and punch with TWF but I can throw a jab cross all day.
Also on the subject of realism and rules. The rules do nothing to forbid acting simply by virtue of being dead. So even though realistically you can't sometimes the rules don't make sense in terms of realism but we manage to apply it anyways.
Nothing in the Unarmed Strike/Attack description suggests that an Unarmed Strike is different than any other single weapon. Nothing. No "double weapon" mention. No extra footnote that says TWF is allowed. Nothing.
And since we know you cannot TWF with a single weapon (and UAS is treated as a weapon, not a maneuver option - this is clearly spelled out in the description that I've already linked to) then it's clear that you cannot TWF with UAS.
The line in the Beastiary totally and utterly contradicts this basic understanding of the rules when it introduces the idea that, "If a creature that does not possess natural attacks wants to attack with both fists, it must use the TWF rules."
Both of these stances are RAW, but only one can work. The D&D devs said Unarmed Strike was a single weapon. The Pathfinder Devs use (copy/pasted) the same wording, but decided that Unarmed Strike counted as multiple weapons, and then failed to update the wording to accurately reflect that ideology.
It's clear from these message boards that the PF Devs intend for TWF to work with UAS alone, but you can't change fundamental rules without changing how those rules are worded.
This is why the whole thing is a mess.
Since you can't seem to be bothered to scroll up (hell, it's even on this page!) I'll go ahead and link to it again:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#unarmed-attacks
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Bolded italics mine. This is the line that says you treat attacks with UAS as you would attacks with a weapon. The only differences are the ones listed, and none of the things listed have anything to say about "UAS is a double weapon" or "UAS is counted as multiple weapons instead of a single weapon."
So please, show me, either of you, anywhere in that entire section, where it supports the idea of UAS being more than a single weapon.
But your simply assuming that it's one weapon it never says attacking with unarmed strike is like attacking with a weapon. It list various body parts and says those are like attacking with a weapon so attacking with my knee is like a weapon and my fist is like a weapon. So there are two things that attack like a weapon. Nothing you can quote shows different your quote plays both ways. It list those parts as unarmed attacks plural not.
You want to hand wave the single weapon issue because if it falls your whole argument does as well.
Since you can't seem to be bothered to scroll up (hell, it's even on this page!) I'll go ahead and link to it again:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#unarmed-attacks
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: ...
Bolded italics mine. This is the line that says you treat attacks with UAS as you would attacks with a weapon. The only differences are the ones listed, and none of the things listed have anything to say about "UAS is a double weapon" or "UAS is counted as multiple weapons instead of a single weapon."
So please, show me, either of you, anywhere in that entire section, where it supports the idea of UAS being more than a single weapon.
As Neo2151 himself said, "you treat attacks with UAS as you would attacks with a weapon." It does not say you treat unarmed strike itself as a weapon; rather, it only compares attacks. There are some differences between unarmed strikes and melee weapons that that section of rules neglected to mention. Some of those differences are obvious, such as the ability to make an unarmed strike cannot be disarmed or sundered. Some of those differences are not obvious, and that leads to long debates.
Furthermore, the first sentence literally says that there are at least three kinds of unarmed strikes: punches, kicks, and head butts. If unarmed strike were a weapon, it would be at least five weapons, given the split between left and right fists and left and right feet. The description of the monk unarmed strike adds elbow and knee strikes. However, first sentences of rules also have a tendency to use language that paints a picture rather than rigorously clarifying the rules, so don't put too much credit in its literal meaning.
Since you can't seem to be bothered to scroll up (hell, it's even on this page!) I'll go ahead and link to it again:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#unarmed-attacks
...Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a
this line actually invalidates your argument this line above that is bolded specifically says the UAS is not a weapon? is much like attacking with a melee weapon.....
flour is much like sand except for the fact you cant bake it,
are we going argue now that it is possible to bake sand?
here is how I see it Unarmed strikes are not mellee weapons they are something more like a natural attack that all creatures can make in one form or another there fore they can be used with TWF because you can't TWf with only one melee weapon. UAs is not a melle weapon so TWF away.
If UAS is a melee weapon we should to be able to make a masterwork version of it and then enchant it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly how do you determine which limb is mainhand and which is offhand? Do you have to make it up as you go, every round?
The same way that you do with normal two-weapon fighting. You declare which attacks are your off hand. There is no right-handed or left-handed in 3.5/PF. However, you do have to declare one weapon your off-hand for the two-weapon fighting attacks.
For example, a dual-wielder with a short sword in each hand declares which sword shall be his off-hand when he takes the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack action. On the next round, when he takes the action again, he could declare the other weapon as his off-hand attack.
The same is true for unarmed strikes (Grick posted RAW that specifically declares it possible to TWF with unarmed strikes). However, I do not believe that you have to enhance individual limbs. If you cast greater magic fang on your unarmed strike, then it affects all unarmed strikes you make, including if you are TWF with unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice to see you back Ash.
If you're using only unarmed strikes, it can't be done.
If UAS is a melee weapon we should to be able to make a masterwork version of it and then enchant it.You can only make a weapon masterwork when it's first created; masterwork quality can't be applied on a weapon if it's already been made. So a fist has to be made masterwork by the crafter (the mother) while the lifeform is being made in the womb. In other words, for your unarmed strike weapon to be masterwork, you have to be born with it as masterwork. Furthermore, since an item has to be masterwork to be enhanced, you can't apply magic enhancements directly to your body unless you were born as a living masterwork weapon. I can be obtuse, too.
huh? are you agreeing with me or quoting the opening to the new Conan movie? I find you usage of geometry in an insult strange? I can also be right and obtuse and 90 degrees.
there is a spell that makes weapons masterwork after creation. it specifically calls out UAS has not eligible.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation
Nice to see you back Ash.
Thank you Dabbler. I appreciate that. ^.^
Here, a present for you. ^-^
Heroes of Alvena Monk.
Nice! Thanks!
A cute argument but, ultimately, irrelevant.huh? are you agreeing with me or quoting the opening to the new Conan movie? I find you usage of geometry in an insult strange? I can also be right and obtuse and 90 degrees.
there is a spell that makes weapons masterwork after creation. it specifically calls out UAS has not eligible.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation
again, I don't understand what point your trying to make? I tend to be sarcastic, but my "argument" works just fine. unless you would care to give a counterargument backed up by the Rules?
you cant make a unarmed strike master work therefore it is not a melee weapon because only melee weapons can be made master work either by construction , or by spells. there fore you can TWF with UAS. you cant TWF with a single melee weapon. a UAS is not a melee weapon so you can TWF with it?